Interpreting contact sheets

[BetterSense]

Since I started shooting 35mm B&W, I have been mostly shooting TMY of unknown age, except for one roll of new TriX I bought and the odd roll of XP2. I put my negatives in PrintFile sheets and contact print them to a sheet of Illford RC paper, using a grade 2 filter, for long enough that the sprocket area of the film is just perceptably lighter than the surrounding paper, which is full black or very close to it.

It seems like the entire contact sheet is too dark, to me. Typically, there are a few shots that I overexposed by 1-2 stops, and they jump right out and look more 'normal' or more like I would print them. The negatives are printable, but unfortunately with my skill, I can't say if they are too thin based either on how they print or how they look on the light table. I just don't have the experience.

My first reaction would be to just rate my film at 200, but I don't want to jump the gun. There may be something iffy about the way I make my contact sheets or the way I interpret them. My rather arbitrary method of base+fog matching may be irrelevant to how negatives actually enlarge.

I always develop in D76 1+1 according to Kodak's times for box speed.

 

[Anscojohn]

Try a higher filter first.

But, over the years, I have generally found that box speed is generally too high. For example, regular Tri-X began as an ASA 200 film; in my experience, it is still an EI 200 film, no matter what the ISO number says. FWIW.

 

[mike c]

I also contact print the same way BetterSense grade 2 contrast and expose for the film edges. The idea is to be able to reveal the full tones and detail of the neg. I don't have a densitometer or use at this point any contrast strips to obtain the contrast of neg. You said that a few were over exposed and looked good,so you might try lowering the film speed (more exposer to film) your development will control the high lights. Kodaks flim speed and development are only starting points. After a little while you'll find your norm and can go on from there, keep good records of what you do. the type of enlarger,water you use, agitation,photo paper,temp.mike

 

[Trask]

Take a six inch piece of unexposed by fully developed film, and put it in your contact printer on top of a sheet of paper. Use a sheet of cardboard or other opaque paper to block all light from the enlarger lens (at our normal fstop setting, whatever you will always use in the future when making contacts) but do let the light reach about 1/2 inch of the negative. Expose for say 2 seconds. Move the blocking paper another half inch, and expose another two seconds. And so forth until you've reached the end of the film. This will give you a series of exposures through the film base onto the paper of 2, 4, 6, 8 etc seconds. Process the paper as usual and look to see at what time point the exposed steps go from dark grey to black. Note this time -- it's the time necessary to get maximum black through the film base, using that specific film, developer and paper. Now go do a regular contact sheet with a roll of film using that determined exposure time, and what you get should be an accurate reflection of what's on the film in terms of exposure in the shadows and how your film development regime is working.

Two additional points: you may find that the time derived from the step testing is a bit off because adding up 8 2-second exposures is not going to be exactly the same as one 16 second exposure. But you should be able to make minor time adjustments to compensate. Also, note that if you've overexposed or overdeveloped your film, the entire exposure may be so moved up the density curve that the exposures look bright with not many dark areas. You can always print down to get blacks in the print, but you'll find that your tonal range has been compressed.

A properly exposed contact sheet is a great tool. The trick is to establish what the exposure time is for max black through the film base, and extrapolate from there.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Trask's method of determining Max Black (an old friend of mine...) works well if you don't take the term too literally. You really need to be sure you don't go too black.

Black is an interesting thing on photo papers. The shoulder of papers means that you can see very small increments of increasing black with added exposure for a long, long way. To achieve a true Dmax on paper requires much more exposure than is really practical when printing. You need to find, instead, a satisfactory deep black for your clear negative density that keeps you from having to overexpose your film three stops from published speed to get shadow detail (when proofing as you describe, which I do as well).

That said, the principle is correct. Expose film edges till they are as black or very close to as black as the exposed paper beside them (as you seem to be doing). I would say that this part of your method is right on.

However, before you go twiddling with EI, make sure that you examine the shadow values in your negatives closely. If the shadows are not printing as you like, i.e., they do not have enough detail, then, yes, lower your EI and expose more. If, however, the shadows have adequate detail, it is just your negative contrast and you need to increase development time or print on a higher contrast grade of paper.

Using a too-fast EI is by far the more common than underdeveloping. Most manufacturers' development times tend to be a little too long in my experience. I imagine you will end up rating your film a bit slower. However, do check shadows first for the following reason.

The contrast of the scene affects the highlights if you are proofing your negatives as you describe. Low-contrast scenes will have good shadow detail and dull highlights if developed to "normal" when proofed this way. Conversely, high-contrast scenes will have good shadows and blown-out highlights. This is not necessarily bad!


I use the Zone System for sheet film, and develop each sheet for optimum negative contrast. For roll film, however this is not practical. For roll film, my adage is "expose for the shadows, develop "normally for everything, print for the highlights." This means, find a development time that allows you to print a "normal" contrast scene on grade 2 or 2.5 paper (the smaller the roll film, the higher contrast grade paper you should standardize on. Some 35mm shooters standardize on grade 3. This helps with grain.) Find an EI that gives you shadow detail you like and a development time that puts "normal" highlights in the proper place.

Keep in mind also that if you use an averaging meter, you are not really "exposing for the shadows." If you are using an in-camera averaging or center-weighted meter, you should go ahead and use the camera meter reading for all normal and low-contrast scenes, but overexpose a stop for high-contrast scenes. This is counter-intuitive, but ensures that you have adequate shadows in high-contrast situations, when the meter might severely underexpose them (since the "average" reading of the scene is so high).

At any rate, if you have arrived at an EI that works and a standard developing time, your "proper proof sheet" will tell you what contrast grade paper to try: contact prints with good highlights print on your standard contrast grade, ones with overexposed highlights print on lower contrast grades and ones with underexposed highlights print on higher contrast grades.

Bottom line: You need to determine your EI and development time yourself, for your equipment, materials and tastes. Manufacturers' recommendations are just starting points. The "proper proof" is a good tool to do this with. Keep printing negative edges black and adjust your EI and development times to get where you want. Expect low- and high-contrast scenes to have highlights that are "under- and overdeveloped" respectively on the proof sheet. This you take care of with paper grade.

Hope this helps some,

Doremus Scudder
www.DoremusScudder.com

 

[Anscojohn]

[A properly exposed contact sheet is a great tool. The trick is to establish what the exposure time is for max black through the film base, and extrapolate from there.[/QUOTE]

************
Yes, indeed.

Life would be greatly simplified for noobs if they internalized this concept completely.

Min exposure for max black through the clear film of your negative is the criterion upon which your interpretive decisions are based.

For myself, for roll film, I just shift the neg so the clear film between two strips is in the center of the image. Put down the test paper; mask the extraneous with two sheets of cardboard, and make my exposure increments. And, yes, a series of exposures gives slightly different density than the same time given all at once.

 

[markbarendt]

http://www.barrythornton.com/

In the links at the bottom of the page find, unzone.

 

[Larry.Manuel]

Thanks for the link to "Unzone" [above]. Amazing. Excellent. Again: thanks.

 

[removed account4]

bettersense -

just make a test strip of an area in your sheet of negatives
that seems to have some dark and some light, an average ..
and print the sheet with that .. not for max black or bright whites
just for what looks OK.
a contact sheet is just to give you an idea of what your roll will look like
and unless you exposed every image in the exact same conditions you
won't have a sheet that is perfect for every view.
and if you bracketed each view by a stop or 2 to help you see how your light meter
reads your scene, and how your developer deals with over and under exposed film ..
nothing will look like it makes sense.

if you can buy a copy of henry horenstein's book
http://www.amazon.com/Black-White-Photography-Third-Revised/dp/0316373052
it might come in handy.

good luck!
john

 

[Anscojohn]

bettersense -

just make a test strip of an area in your sheet of negatives
that seems to have some dark and some light, an average ..
and print the sheet with that .. not for max black or bright whites
just for what looks OK.
a contact sheet is just to give you an idea of what your roll will look like
and unless you exposed every image in the exact same conditions you
won't have a sheet that is perfect for every view.
and if you bracketed each view by a stop or 2 to help you see how your light meter
reads your scene, and how your developer deals with over and under exposed film ..
nothing will look like it makes sense.

if you can buy a copy of henry horenstein's book
http://www.amazon.com/Black-White-Photography-Third-Revised/dp/0316373052
it might come in handy.

good luck!
john

*******
I'm sorry; but I don't think I can fully accept this approach; unless I misunderstand everything and what you are saying is to use the bracketed exposures as an empirical way to arrive at a true film speed and proper developing time. I think a more structured approach, one step at a time, is a better way to go
The proof sheet should be a positive indicator of how appropriately the photographer is exposing and developing the film. If, upon making the proper proof, the images are consistently too "dark" then a lower EI is indicated; if the proper proof is too "light", a higher Exposure Index is indicated. If too flat, then more film development is indicated; if too contrasty, less film development.
As Eastman has said for years, "if you negatives are consistently too......" then........." Kodak at one time included what that company called a "safety factor" which, in practice, was a full stop for most films. I have found, in practice, that one half the ISO is necessary to get proper density; and that far more negs are ruined by underexposure.
Making proper proof sheets may take a bit more film and paper, but i think EK's conservative approach is better for a newbie.
My two cents.

 

[removed account4]

it seems to me, and i am probably as wrong as i always am, that
when one first picks up a film camera, loads it with film, shoots it,
processes the film and makes a contact sheet + prints, s/he is
learning how everything works.

when one brackets his/ her film
and processes the same way every time, one can
see how the whole thing works.
bracketing exposures allows one to actually see
what under or over exposed film looks like. to some, it may be helpful,
to others it isn't.

the book i mentioned is used in an awful lot of photo 1 classes.
it has pictures that show what under or over exposed / processed film
looks like, and what common processing mistakes look like ..
as well as a ton of other "stuff" that is helpful.

as always YMMV

 

[ic-racer]

Look at the negatives. Everything you need to know is in the negatives. Contact printing them just adds an unnecessary level of mystery to the interpretation.

 

[David William White]

That would be fine if the negative were the final product.

 

[Anscojohn]

Look at the negatives. Everything you need to know is in the negatives. Contact printing them just adds an unnecessary level of mystery to the interpretation.

******
Making a proper proof kills two birds with one stone. The most important thing is allowing the photographer to evaluate the film exposure and development. With roll film it is an "extra" step only if, through experience, and proper proofing, the photographer has established a proper film speed and a proper developing time. For a newbie making proper proofs is the basic way to establish the minimum exposure time for max black through clear film, at the enlarger setting most commonly used for making prints.
The second bird is giving you a little bitty positive of what's on the neg. That is far less important than the information gained in making a proper proof.

 

[Anscojohn]

it seems to me, and i am probably as wrong as i always am, that
when one first picks up a film camera, loads it with film, shoots it,
processes the film and makes a contact sheet + prints, s/he is
learning how everything works.

when one brackets his/ her film
and processes the same way every time, one can
see how the whole thing works.
bracketing exposures allows one to actually see
what under or over exposed film looks like. to some, it may be helpful,
to others it isn't.

the book i mentioned is used in an awful lot of photo 1 classes.
it has pictures that show what under or over exposed / processed film
looks like, and what common processing mistakes look like ..
as well as a ton of other "stuff" that is helpful.

as always YMMV

******
It is far easier, in my opinion, and through experience, that the best way for the noobie to establish a proper Exposure Index and proper film developing time is through proofing a couple of rolls of developed film, finding the miniumum exposure through clear film for max black, at the enlarger settings most commonly used.
In essense, Kodak has, for years, stated in its instructions that if your negatives are [CONSISTENTLY too thin, increase exposure; and vice versa; and if your negatives are CONSISTENTLY too flat, increase developing time, or vice versa. The key, as with everything in darkroom, is consistency. And the most direct way to establishing the proper personal Exposure Index and the proper personal film developing time is through making proper proofs. Bracketing individual frames, etc. introduces, in my experience, too many variables for the new photographer.
The base tone established by clear film is the foundation upon which the photographer builds his/her photograph. It may not be the tone desired for the expressive print, but the new photographer should accustom oneself to establishing that tone to use as a criterion for further judgment.

 

[nicefor88]

All this about the pleasure of making contacts. Some may look bad but after you enlarge these they're much better. Aaaaah! Feels good.

 

[Konical]

"Making a proper proof kills two birds with one stone."

Good Afternoon,

I'd throw in a third bird. Using the back of the contact sheet to write enlargement data is good practice; it can often save the bother of a test print when you come back later to print old negatives.

Konical